## Facts

- The United States brought an in rem action under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) seeking condemnation of 88 cases of a product labeled “Bireley’s Orange Beverage.”
- The government alleged “economic adulteration” under FDCA § 402(b)(4), claiming substances were added “so as to make it appear better or of greater value than it is.”
- The beverage was a non-carbonated orange-flavored soft drink in a commercially recognized category of similar products.
- The product contained only a relatively small amount of natural orange juice, but included added ingredients such as yellow coal tar dyes, sugar, lactic acid, and orange oil that enhanced color, taste, and aroma.
- The government’s theory was that these additives created an appearance and consumer impression of greater natural orange content and value than the product actually possessed.
- A jury in the District of New Jersey found the product adulterated, and the court entered a decree of condemnation.
- The claimant-owner, General Foods Corporation, appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether FDCA § 402(b)(4) applies to modern processed foods where additives allegedly create a misleading impression of increased value.
2. What constitutes making a food “appear better or of greater value than it is” under § 402(b)(4).
3. Whether the evidence and jury instructions were sufficient to support the jury’s finding of adulteration and the resulting decree of condemnation.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the decree of condemnation.
- The court held § 402(b)(4) is a remedial provision aimed at modern production and marketing practices and is not limited by narrow grammatical readings.
- The court held the statute reaches processing that leads consumers to attribute greater inherent value to a product than it actually has, including an impression of greater natural content.
- The court found sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that additives made the beverage appear of greater value than its actual composition justified.
- The court found no reversible error in the district court’s jury instructions when viewed as a whole.

## Legal Principles

- FDCA § 402(b)(4) covers “economic adulteration,” including adding substances to a food to make it appear better or of greater value than it is, even absent a safety hazard.
- Statutory interpretation of the FDCA should reflect its remedial purpose and application to contemporary food manufacturing and marketing.
- Whether a product appears “better” or of “greater value” may be evaluated against ordinary consumer expectations in the relevant marketplace category.
- Adding color, flavor, or other ingredients is not per se unlawful; liability turns on whether the additions create a misleading impression of greater intrinsic quality or natural content.
- On appeal from a jury verdict, the reviewing court does not reweigh evidence if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury’s finding.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed condemnation because the evidence permitted a finding that the beverage’s added color and flavor components, combined with minimal natural juice content, made it appear to consumers to have greater natural orange-based value than it actually had, satisfying FDCA § 402(b)(4).


United States v. 88 Cases, More or Less, Containing Bireley’s Orange Beverage, 187 F.2d 967 (3d Cir. 1951)